Summary

The website content discusses the importance of reader interaction, particularly highlighting and commenting, in supporting Medium writers beyond just clapping for their articles.

Abstract

The author presents a hypothesis that Medium's payment system for writers is influenced by reader engagement, specifically highlighting and commenting, rather than just the number of claps. The article compares two of the author's own articles, "Mentor" and "Energy," both accepted into Medium publications under the keywords Leadership and Work. Despite "Mentor" receiving more visibility and interaction, "Energy" earned more. The author analyzes the statistics, clap counts, and comments for both articles, suggesting that the higher payment for "Energy" could be attributed to a higher number of highlights and comments, even though it had less exposure and fan interaction. The article concludes by encouraging readers to support writers by interacting with their content through highlighting and commenting, in addition to clapping.

Opinions

The author believes that Medium's payment to writers is not solely based on the number of claps but also on reader interaction such as highlighting and commenting.
There is a suggestion that Medium's algorithm may favor articles with more meaningful engagement, as "Energy" earned more despite having fewer claps and fans.
The author posits that the traditional metrics of success, such as view count and claps, may not directly correlate with earnings on Medium.
The article implies that being proactive in engaging with content, beyond passive consumption or a simple clap, can have a significant impact on a writer's compensation.
The author invites feedback and alternative theories, indicating an openness to dialogue and a willingness to revise their hypothesis based on new evidence or insights from other writers.

How to support a Medium writer — Highlight then Comment!

A case study in not being popular for analysing payments

Now this is not an extensive case study — it is not a dissertation that relies on a diverse population set — this is an n=1 study. Those with a statistics bent would decry this — and many have said that there is no rhyme or reason to the Medium payment process. But I have a hypothesis supported by a small amount of evidence.

The hypothesis is that PAYMENT is coupled to the amount of claps a person gives (compared to their clap history) and their interaction with the story indicated by Highlighting/Commenting. To explore this I will provide a snapshot comparing the two articles below — for the remainder of the article I will call them ‘Mentor’ and ‘Energy’. Both of them were accepted into Medium publications, and both of them selected by the Curators under the keywords Leadership and Work. Despite a much lower interaction in every category, Energy earned more than Mentor.

How To Become a Better Mentor in Three Simple Steps

And why you should

medium.com

When have you felt the most energised at work?

I bet it took these 4 things

medium.com

Payment

In the period of May 24th to June 24th, these two stories received the below payments. For a point of reference, Mentor was released on June 12th (12 days of exposure) and Energy one week later on June 19th (5 days of exposure). The amount received for these articles is comparable.

Statistics

When I reviewed the statistics for the two articles, it appears as though Mentor should have been the better supported for Payment. Now — I had a higher number of friend link interactions for Mentor, but none of them were fans, they did assist in the Reads column (thanks guys haha).

Energy has a slightly higher read ratio but less fans, but Mentor had a far higher amount of reads.

Claps

There is a large discrepancy between the clap count for the two articles. Mentor received a clap number of 209. On average the 13 fans provided around 16 claps each with some fans clapping 50 times and some just once.

Energy received a clap number of just 37 from the seven fans, that gives an average of just over five per fan. The maximum from one fan was 20 claps, the minimum just one from five of the fans.

So what?

It would appear, that in every category Mentor received higher visibility and interaction. Higher views, a higher number of fans, and a seven times higher amount of applause. So why did Energy receive more funding?

The only discriminating factor as I see it— Highlighting and Comments.

Energy had an increased amount of highlights and a slightly higher number of comments. Energy was also identified by The Startup without being submitted to the publication, they contacted me for addition to their publication.

Is this enough to boost the earning amount above an article that out performed the other in every discernible and measurable area of performance? I think it is the interaction through highlighting and comments.

So how do you support an article you really appreciate — you interact with the text, not only the clapping icon at the bottom. Highlight the text then comment on your observations. I know there are people that think Highlights distract from the design of the article, but it is important to Medium, and therefore important to the Authors.

If you think I have it wrong — let me know your theory. If you are an Author and have contradictory data — let me know as well.

I thought this was an interesting observation from a limited data set, I maintain the right to revise this opinion as my Medium journey continues.

Stay safe and keep smiling,

Leon.

I’m a new writer with a keen curiosity for people, human nature, leadership and growth. More at https://leonpurton.com. Same handle on Twitter.